Comment by joejohnson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joejohnson | Hacker News Reader

From the quoted LA Times piece: "Unlike in previous booms, the tech industry isn’t creating as many middle-class jobs..."

I don't believe this. There are tons of Software Engineer jobs paying around 80-100k in SF. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

However, I agree with this piece. The tech companies and the people of San Francisco as a whole need to really change things. A big part of that change probably needs to happen at the local government level where there is so much incompetence and a decent amount of corruption: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

SF wants to be a big city, but many of the residents are actively refusing policies that will allow for better services, denser urban areas and other benefits of being a large city. Otherwise, San Francisco will continue to be the largest small town in America, with problems like homelessness and income inequality worse than a city ten times it's size (say, New York City).

You make a great point, but would you agree with the following?:

There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

Is this now (perceived as) middle class?

"Is this now (perceived as) middle class?"

Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.

Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.

I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?

I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class.

However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3].

It's really not a perception thing, it's reality.

1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05

2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/

3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...

The numbers from the census are household income. The average household has nearly 2 workers.

Yes. That's definitely middle class. Especially living in an expensive area like San Francisco.

Its quite the middle class. Especially if you avail yourself of public transport and live out in Queens half an hour away.

Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.

For the location, it indeed affords you what everyone thinks of as a middle-class lifestyle.

This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com